In light of yesterday's Senate condemnation of the progressive netroots via MoveOn.org, I think it is more appropriate than ever to see rigorous, well-researched work documenting the impact of the progressive blogosphere and progressive netroots on the American political scene. This is why I am happy that Professor Matthew Kerbel of Villanova University has agreed to share some of his preliminary research on that very subject here on Open Left. Professor Kerbel is a friend of mine with whom I have frequently discussed this topic, ever since we worked together on a book project more than two years ago: Let's Get This Party Started. His current work seeks to be one of the first, full-length studies of the impact of the progressive blogosphere on American politics, and its rigorous, quantitative basis will serve as a useful counter to the frequent anecdotal, elitist dismissals we often receive from the political and media establishment. He has modified a section of a paper he recently presented at the American Political Science Association for Open Left, which you can read here:
I have also reproduced this piece in the extended entry, though without the charts and table. This section focuses on the success rate of "netroots funded" candidates at the federal level in the 2006 midterm elections. Here is a key graph:
Within each tier save for two online-funded toss-up races, recipients of online funding kept pace with or marginally outperformed traditionally-funded campaigns in terms of overall won-loss records. Perhaps more importantly, online-funded races were overwhelmingly competitive, suggesting that there is value in netroots funding to candidates who accept it. Most long-shot candidates receiving online money were able to finish within four points of their opponents. Seven of eight Democrats in "Lean
Republican" districts ran competitive races, while all three "Likely Republican" districts and five of ten "Safe Republican" districts were competitive. Apart from the value to the individual campaign, competitive races increase the costs of competition overall, forcing opponents to expend resources to contest seats that otherwise would not be endangered.
These figures attest to the value of online funding methods, particularly as they apply to underdog campaigns. But, fundraising is only one portion of hybrid campaigning, which includes message dissemination and grassroots mobilization. In my next post, I'll address how well hybrid campaigns exploited the two-way communication potential of the Internet by engaging supporters with interactive features and hyperlinks from their campaign sites to other Internet websites such as blogs like this.
I had a political epiphany a while back, and someone said I should post it in a diary. It will follow after the jump, but first, some caveats. This was written before the Iraq vote occurred, so that has not been factored in. To be honest, I don't know how to factor it in just yet. Second, it was written while I was in the hospital and merely transcribed afterwards. As such, please excuse any minor historical mistakes I may have made in my theorizing. I would appreciate any corrections people might like to offer. Third, in no way do I want this to weaken the principles of the Democratic Party. It is merely a way of viewing the current system and what I believe to be its coming change. I still stand behind the plan of action detailed below and will do so until the Democratic Party fails to support progressive values entirely. I pray to God that today is not that day.
P.S. Sorry about the length, and I assure you, I'm not a Naderite.
